Ulster Unionist Party Councillor Jeffrey Dudgeon has revealed in today’s Belfast Newsletter that he has complained to the BBC in relation to the recent Loughinisland judgement, handed down by Mr Justice McCloskey.

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER

Join over thousands of readers who are receiving our newsletter and being kept up to date with the latest news from the community

We hate spam. Your email address will not be sold or shared with anyone else.

Throughout the courtroom drama only Unionist Voice consistently highlighted that the mainstream media were reporting a whopping lie, namely that Justice McCloskey previously represented Raymond White, as fact.

“But, of course, the allegation that Mr Justice McCloskey represented an PSNI officer involved in the Loughinisland case is quite simply factually incorrect. He represented the Police Association and ACC Raymond White filed an affidavit in the case. Mr White was NOT the applicant. This allegation has been concocted by legacy activists to try and derail Mr McCloskey’s judgement. Would they have taken any issue if Mr Justice McCloskey had ruled in their favour? Of course not!”

When the lie was exposed in Mr McCloskey’s judgement on 24 January 2018, those that had shared the lie did not seek to balance that out by revealing that they had got it wrong, instead they airbrushed over that inconvenient fact, and in some cases just continued with the lie.

If the media outlets, such as the BBC and Irish Times, that had claimed Mr Justice McCloskey represented Raymond White were so sure of their position, then why are they not now accusing a High Court judge of blatantly lying in a High Court judgement?

It is either one or the other, there is no middle ground. It was specifically alleged that Mr Justice McCloskey represented Mr Raymond White as a named applicant in a previous case. Mr Justice McCloskey, in his judgement, says that he did not. Someone is lying.

Prominent figures mocked those highlighting that they had completely misunderstood, perhaps on purpose, the 2002 litigation and scoffed that “barristers know better”. On this occasion, it appears that they did not.

You can read Unionist Voice’s previous coverage of the courtroom saga here;

Share this:

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Unionist Voice than ever but unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can.

The Unionist Voice is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias. No one edits our Editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important because it enables us to give a voice to the voiceless, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.

f everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as £1, you can support the Unionist Voice– and it only takes a minute. Thank you.